79 



It represented a museum, with everything stuffed or in alcohol, everything labelled, classi- 

 fied, tucked away as disposed of, designated properly once for all, without a live thought 

 to lighten the catacomb. This fire Darwin was to bring and Ag.issiz's own scholars are 

 to carry the torches, Marsh, Packard, Morse and the rest. The fault of science is its 

 quarrelsomeness, its egotism, its belief, not in humanity, but in itself. Everywhere the 

 doctors are busy naming diseases, but what humanity demands is that its evils should be 

 cured. This is what unfavorably contrasts Science with Religion, with that practice of good 

 conduct, unselfishness, gentleness, that enthusiasm for what is right in itself which an en- 

 lightened Christianity displays, More than Religion, Science needs men of the first 

 class, but it is often served by men of the second, mere disputants. Much as Aga&siz 

 himself disapproves of the quarrels of scientists, of which I have the proof in a letter, it 

 is undoubted that the rise of Science in America brought this fault to the surface. That 

 Agassiz exercised an influence over Harris cannot be doubted. But Harris had a 

 certain natural quality of his own which resisted an outside pressure and reveals itself as 

 it is in his writings. Beside the widely heard lecturer, Harris becomes comparatively ob- 

 scure and silent ; but the smaller man is nevertheless heard by posterity from the potency 

 of his thought, from the singleness of his purpose. That Agassiz esteemed Harris is to be 

 inferred from his having confided to him the entomological chapter of his '■' Lake 

 Superior," now a rare book. 



Dr. Harris himself is an author who may be read to-day on the subject. The sim- 

 plicity with which he imparts his information lends a charm to his quiet style of writ- 

 ing. He has the merit of perspicacity. The sentences with their dependent parts, give 

 us clear thoughts clearly expressed, and not only for what he gives us should we be 

 grateful to Dr. Harris, but for that which he refrains from giving ; that which it is clearly 

 not in his good nature to give He never misrepresents anyone, nor does he abuse the 

 oonfidence which the State of Massachusetts has reposed in him by circulating asper- 

 sions upon the work of others at the expense of the public. He is extremely careful 

 of other people's reputation, neither ridiculing ignorance nor concealing independent 

 discovery. When Miss Morris came forward with her statement as to the method of ovi- 

 position of the Hessian fly in opposition to Dr. Harris's own observation, he merely 

 says, (p. 430): " If, therefore, the observations of Miss Morris are equally correct, they 

 will serve to shew, still more than the foregoing history, how variable and extraordinary 

 is the economy of this insect," etc. Dr. Harris feels, with the candor of a large mind, 

 that he has not (in common with the rest of mankind) sounded the depths of know- 

 ledge. He makes room for the unknown, for that at least which he does not know. 

 The consideration which Dr. Harris habitually shows is a proof that he was unacquainted 

 with Hiibner's illustrated works when he renamed several species so beautifully figured by 

 that industrious German entomologist. I agree therefore on this head with what Dr. 

 Morris says in Flint's edition of the report, and I regard Dr. Hagen's supposition* that 

 Harris " knew " Hiibner's names and rejected them, as doing injustice to Dr. Harris, and 

 as the result of a false estimate of Dr. Harris's character. Dr. Harris is throughout 

 unambitious of himself, intent only on bringing out entomological facts in pursuance of 

 his duty. His report, therefore, nowhere reads like autobiography ; it treats solely of 

 the doings of insects, and what must be done by us to circumvent their ravages. 

 With all this there is little of what may be called literary effort, and literary effort may 

 be easily spared in a report, provided the English is good. Dr. Harris is too staid and 

 preoccupied with his work to indulge in humour ; such sallies of wit as we may find in 

 him are, however, neither flippant nor tawdry. He incites to a general war against the 

 tent caterpillar : " I beg leave to urge the people of this Commonwealth to declare war 

 against these caterpillars, a war of extermination to be waged annually during the month. 



* Papilio, 3, 61, where Dr. Hagen says : " It is a rule everywhere accepted that a figure even (sic} 

 named can never antedate a description." What Dr. Hagen means is probably that a name, published by 

 figure only, should not be preferred on account of priority. I do not admit that the "rule is every- 

 where accepted." Dr. Hagen has evidently not studied the literature of European Lepidoptera. Hiibner'& 

 death left a few x>lates of the "Samlung" undistributed, but the species are wholly to be attributed; to 

 Hiibner, not to Geyer. It is different with the "Zutraege," which were completed by Geyer. A. com- 

 parison of the title pages and preface to the " Zutraege " will sustain this view. 



